> 


AN 


ii©^i\,ir 


ON    THE 


INABILITY  OF  SINNERS. 

FROM    THE 

EVANGEUCAL  GUARDIAff  AND  REVIEW, 

FOR  FEBRUARY  AND  MARCH,  1818,  PRINTED  AT 
NEW-YORK. 

SECOJ^D  EDITION. 


BY  A  PRESBYTERIAN. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PUBLISHED  BY  J.  W.  SCOTT,  NO.  36,  NORTH  SIXTH  STREET. 

1819. 


AN  ESSAY,  &:c. 


A  O  relieve  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  fact,  that  man  is 
required  by  the  law  of  God  to  do  what  he  is  unable  to  per- 
form, a  distinction  has  been  made  by  some  valuable  divines, 
between  natural  and  moral  inability.  When  this  distinction  is 
carelully  explained,  and  nothing  more  meant  by  it,  than  that 
man  possesses  the  faculties  ot  aratic»«ial  and  moral  being,  which 
render  him  accountable  ibr  his  conduct;  and  that,  although,  all 
these  faculties  are  so  corrupted  and  perverted  by  the  lall,  that 
he  has  become  unable  to  fulfil  the  will  of  God,  yet  he  is  inex- 
cusable for  every  breach  of  the  divine  precepts  to  which  his 
depravity  leads  him;  it  is  not  likely  to  mislead  by  making 
wrong  impressions. 

But  this  distinction,  thus  temperately  and  carefully  stated 
and  illustrated,  has  been  pushed  by  some  writers  and  preach- 
ers to  an  unwarrantable  length.  They  do  not  hesitate  to  use 
such  unguarded  expressions  as  the  following:  "  Sinners  have 
full  ability  to  repent  and  believe;  they  have  ample  power  to  do 
the  will  of  God;  he  requires  from  them  nothing  above  their 
strength." 

Is  this  the  language  of  sober  theology?  Can  it  be  justified 
by  an  appeal,  either  to  Scripture  or  to  Christian  experience?  Is 
it  not  repugnant  to  both,  as  well  to  the  Standards  of  our 


4. 

Church?  Is  no  danger  to  be  apprehended  that  the  use  of  such 
language  will  mislead  the  mind  from  the  truth,  and  foster  in 
sinners  a  spirit  of  self-sufficiency?  Does  it  not,  in  fact,  coun- 
teract the  design  of  that  painful  and  humiliating  work  of  legal 
convictions  and  distressing  terrors,  which  usually  precedes  re- 
generation; and  by  which  they  are  made  experimentally  to  feel 
how  utterly  unable  they  are  to  emancipate  themselves  from  the 
thraldom  of  sin,  and  how  entirely  dependent  they  are  for  this 
great  and  necessary  blessing  on  the  sovereign  and  mighty  grace 
of  God? 

As  the  fundamental  precept  of  his  law,  Jehovah  proclaims, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might:"*  and  has  any  unregene- 
rate  sinner  ability  to  fulfil  this  great  commandment,  in  all  its 
extent,  and  thus  to  keep  the  whole  law?  Where  is  the  saint 
living,  sanctified  as  he  may  be  by  the  grace  of  his  God,  who, 
having  reached  this  elevated  point  in  obedience,  has  no  more 
reason  to  complain  of  the  languor  of  his  love;  no  more  reason 
to  bewail  the  impotence  of  his  depraved  nature?  Greater  at- 
tainments in  religion  than  those  of  the  holy  apostle  Paul,  it  is 
presumed,  were  never  made  by  any  man;  and  did  he  imagine 
himself  possessed  of  full  ability  to  keep  the  law  of  God  per- 
fectly, when  in  the  bitterness  of  his  spirit  he  exclaimed,  *'  Oh! 
wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death?" 

For  an  answer  to  these  interrogatories,  let  Presbyterians  re- 
fer to  the  Standards  of  their  Church,  and  they  will  find  how  ex- 
plicitly such  ability  in  any  of  our  fallen  race  is  denied.  In 
reply  to  the  eighty-second  question,  the  Shorter  Catechism  as- 
serts, "  No  mere  man,  since  the  fall,  is  able  in  this  life,  per- 
fectly to  keep  the  commandments  of  God;  but  doth  daily  break 
them  in  thought,  word,  and  deed."  In  reference  to  believers, 
the  Confession  of  Faith  (Chap.  xvi.  Sect.  3.)  affirms,  "  Their 
ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but  whol- 
ly from  the  Spirit  of  Christ."  The  larger  Catechism,  in  an- 
swer to  the  ninety-ninth  question,  states  it  as  one  use  of  the 

*  Deuteronomy,  vi.  5, 


moral  law  to  all  ?nen^  **  To  convince  them  of  their  disability 
to  keep  it."  And  in  reply  to  the  question  relative  to  man's 
ability,  it  harmonizes  with  the  Shorter  Catechism,  confirming 
the  truth  by  the  introduction  of  a  few  additional  terms.  The 
answer  is  thus  forcibly  stated:  "  No  mere  man  is  able^  either 
of  himself^  or  by  um^  ifrace  received  in  this  life,  perfectly  to 
keep  the  commandments  ot  God;  but  doth  daily  break  them 
in  thought,  word,  and  deed  " 

Such  is  the  language  of  that  form  of  sound  words  publish- 
ed and  acknowledged  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  their  stand- 
ard of  doctrine.  But,  from  the  decisions  of  these  standards,  an 
appeal  may  be  taken  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Acknowledging 
the  supreme  authority  of  divine  revelation,  to  which  all  con- 
fessions of  faith  must  do  homage,  we  are  willing  to  meet  the 
advocates  of  man's  ability  at  that  bar  from  which  can  lie  no 
appeal. 

What  is  the  language  of  inspired  writers  on  this  subject? 
Do  they  express  themselves  in  terms  calculated  to  nourish  a 
self-sufficient  spirit  in  sinners,  by  ascribing  to  them  an  ability 
to  yield  spiritual  obedience,  whenever  they  may  be  pleased  to 
put  forth  this  hidden  power?  By  no  means.  On  the  one  hand, 
they  assert  and  maintain  the  high  claims  of  Jehovali,  by  re- 
quiring them  to  repent,  to  believe,  and  to  obey;  but  on  the 
other,  they  teach  them  explicitly  their  weak,  and  ruined,  and 
helpless  condition  by  nature,  and  their  absolute  dependence 
on  divine  grace  for  the  requisite  ability;  lest,  in  the  pride  of 
their  own  imagined  power,  they  should  postpone  attention  to 
duty,  or,  in  attempting  it,  should  fail,  by  resting  on  them- 
selves, instead  of  looking  to  the  Almighty  for  his  proffered  aid. 

To  the  Jews  our  Lord  said,  "  No  man  can  come  to  me, 
except  the  Father,  which  sent  me,  draw  him;"  and  to  his 
apostles,  when  disclosing  to  them  the  source  of  all  their  fruit- 
fulness  in  good  works,  and  of  all  their  ability  to  serve  God, 
"  Abide  in  me  and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit 
of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine:  no  more  can  ye,  except 
ye  abide  in  me.  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.  He 
that  abideth  in  me  and  I  in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much 


fruit:  for  without  me  ye  can  do  nothing-.^^*  This  same  truths 
so  humbling  to  the  pride  of  human  nature,  is  inculcated  in  the 
writmgs  of  the  apostles.  "  For,"  says  Paul,  "  the  flesh  lusteth 
against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh:  and  these 
are  contrary  the  one  against  the  other;  so  that  ye  cannot  do 
the  things  ye  would.'''']  In  another  place,  he  says,  "  For 
when  we  were  xvHhout  strength^]  Christ  died  for  us:"  and 
the  same  truth  he  inculcates  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  where, 
by  a  figure  of  Scripture,  he  ascribes  the  impotence  of  human 
nature  to  the  divine  law;  "  For  what  the  law  could  not  do  in 
that  it  was  weak  through  thtjiesh.,  God,  sending  his  own  Son 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh. "^ 
The  constant  recollection  of  this  truth,  so  interwoven  with  his 
experience,  kept  this  great  man  humble  amidst  the  triumphs 
attending  his  labours:  "  Not  that  we  are  sufficient  oi  ourselves 
to  think  any  thing  as  of  ourselves;  but  our  sufiiciency  is  of  God. 
I  laboured  more  abundantly  than  they  all;  yet  not  I,  but  the 
grace  of  God  that  was  with  me.  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me;  and  the  life  which  I  now  live  I  live  by  the  iaith 
of  Christ,  who  loved  me  and  gave  himself  for  me.  To  will 
is  present  with  me;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I 
find  not.'^ 

So  plain  and  repeated  is  the  decision  of  the  divine  oracles 
against  the  ability  of  man  to  do  the  will  of  God.  This  deci- 
sion will  appear  still  plainer  and  more  conclusive,  if  it  can  be 
shown  from  the  representation  given  in  the  records  of  inspira- 
tion of  the  change  produced  by  divine  grace  in  a  sinner,  that 
a  new  principle^  or  power  of  action  is  communicated.  How  is 
it  described?  It  is  new  life:  "  You  hath  he  quickened  who 
were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."||  It  is  a  new  birth: 
"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  again 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."**  It  is  a  new  creation: 
"  We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them."f  f  Now,  is  it  possible  that  so  vast  and  radical  a  change 

*  John  XV.  1.     t  Gal.  v.  17.     |  Rom-  v.  6.     §  Rom.  Tiii.  3.      ||  Ephe?.  ii.  1.    ^ 
**  John  iii.  3.     tfEphee.  ii.  10. 


can  be  produced  in  sinful  man,  by  the  mighty  power  of  God* 
without  being  attended  by  the  communication  of  a  new  prin- 
ciple oi  action?  He  is  born  again;  he  is  created  anew;  he 
is  endowed  with  new  life;  he  is  made  a  new  creature  in  Christ 
Jesus;  and  yet  no  new  faculty,  no  new  power  is  given  to  him 
whicli  he  did  not  possess  belore!    Impossible. 

True,  he  retains  essentially  the  same  faculty  of  under- 
derstanding  ^>  hich  he  had  previously  to  his  regeneration:  but 
this  faculty  has  been  so  changed  and  illuminated,  that  an  in- 
spired writer  speaks  of  it  as  if  the  sinner  had  no  understand- 
ing before:  '•*■  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding^  that  we  may  know  him 
that  is  true."*  "  God,  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out 
of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  us  the  light 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ.''!  True,  he  retains  essentially  the  same  faculty  of 
will;  but  this  faculty  has  been  so  changed  and  influenced  by 
divine  grace,  that  it  has  received  a  new  bias,  and  a  power  to 
act  in  a  holy  manner:  "  It  is  God  that  worketh  in  us  both  to 
wiil  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.":|;  True,  he  retains  es- 
sentially the  same  system  of  affections;  but  this  system  has 
been  so  renewed,  purified,  and  elevated,  that  the  change  is 
described  as  the  exchange  of  one  heart  for  another:  "  And  I 
will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  oi  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  an  heart  of  flesh. "§  Can  it  then  be  doubted,  whether 
this  spiritual  life^  which  quickens  every  faculty  Oi  the  soul, 
pouring  light  into  the  understanding,  infusing  a  holy  bias  into  the 
will,  giving  sensibility  to  the  heart,  and  turning  the  current  of 
the  aflTections  from  earth  to  heaven,  is  a  new  principle,  a  new 
power  of  action?  Animal  liie,  and  rational  liie,  are  combined 
in  the  same  being,  but  they  are  principles  and  powers  oi  ac- 
tion distinct  and  different  from  each  other;  and  so  is  spiritual 
life  a  principle,  a  power,  distinct  and  different  irom  both. 

The  testimony  of  experience  on  the  question  harmonizes 
both  with  the  decision  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  with  the  lan- 
guage of  our  standards  of  doctrine.  The  sinner  is  awakened ^ 
*  1  Jolin  V.  20.   t  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  J,PUil,  ii.  13.  §  Ezek.  xhti.  26. 


8 

he  sets  about  the  work  of  reformation  in  his  own  strength, 
vainly   imagining  he  has    sufficient   for    its   accomplishment. 
Does  the  experiment  justify    his  lofty    notions  of  his   own    i 
ability?     If  he  really  possess  adequate  power,  why  is  he  cou«    5 
strained  to  cry  to  God  for  help  and  strength?     Why  beseech    i 
the  Lord  to   grant  what   he  does  not  need?     Pardon  he  cer-   ' 
tainly  needs;  and  for  pardon  he  may  with  great  propriety  ask; 
but  if  he  possess  ample  power  to  repent,  believe,  and  do  the 
whole  will  of  God,  where  is  the  consistency  in  praying  for 
grace  to  enable  him  to  perform  his  duty?     Every  petition  of 
this  kind  surely  contradicts  the  position  controverted.     Ah! 
experience  humbles  the  sinner's  lofty  notions.  He  makes  trial 
of  his  strength;   he  puts  forth  his  hand  to  the  mighty  work; 
and  he  finds  his  impotence.  The  uniform  result  of  every  ex- 
periment furnishes  a  comment  on  those  memorable  words  in 
which  God,  while  he  teaches  the  sinner  to  despair  of  himself, 
encourages  him   to   hope   in  omnipotent   grace:    "  O    Israel, 
thou  hast  destroyed  thyself;  but  in  me  is  thine  help."* 

When  put  to  the  test  the  faculties  of  siniul  man  prove  in- 
sufficient for  the  work  required  from  him;  and  he  learns  the 
mortifving  truth  that  he  is  indeed  unable  to  perform  his  duty: 
not  from  the  want  of  an  understanding,  but  from  the  want  of 
an  enlightened  understanding;  not  from  the  want  of  a  will,  but 
from  the  want  of  a  subdued  and  holy  will;  not  from  the  want 
of  affections,  but  from  the  want  of  sanctified  affections.  And 
while  his  rational  faculties  are  thus  disabled  by  sin,  he  finds  it 
as  impossible  to  repent  and  believe,  as  it  is  for  a  paralytic  to 
do  the  actions  he  was  accustomed  to  do  while  his  limbs  were 
sound  and  vigorous. 

Is  the  correctness  of  this  exhibition  of  Christian  experience 
called  in  question?  Let  it  be  compared  with  a  statement 
given  by  the  pen  of  inspiration.  Paul,  like  other  natural  men, 
entertained,  before  his  conversion,  lofty  notions  of  his  natural 
ability.  "  I  was,"  says  he,  "  alive  without  the  law  once:'* 
meaning  that  while  he  was  ignorant  of  the  spiritual  nature  of 
the  law,  and  of  the  vast  extent  of  its  requirements,  he  doubted 
*  Hosea  Jtiii.  9. 


not  his  power  to  keep  it,  and  thus  to  merit  its  promised  re- 
ward. But  how  great  a  change  was  produced  in  his  \  lews  by 
the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit!  How  was  his  pride  abased,  and 
his  impotence  disclosed,  when  the  true  nature  and  M'ide  dc- 
''  mands  of  the  law  were  presented  to  his  mind!  "  But  when 
the  comandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died."  Now  the 
experimtnt  was  made;  now  his  boasted  ahilitv  was  put  to  the 
test.  What  was  the  result?  So  far  from  being  able  to  keep 
this  holy  law,  he  found,  by  woeful  experience,  that  the  applica- 
tion of  its  rigorous  demands  to  his  conscience,  served  only 
to  irritate  his  lusts,  to  awaken  his  dormant  sins,  and  to  discover 
to  him  his  deep-rooted  and  dreadful  depravitv.  "  Sin"  he 
confesses,  ''  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment,  wrought  in 
me  all  manner  of  concupiscence:"  and  thus,  *'^the  command- 
ment, which  was  ordained  unto  life,  he  found  to  be  unto 
death."* 

It  appears,  then,  whether  the  appeal  be  made  to  the  stand- 
ards of  our  Church,  or  to  the  testimony  of  Chrstian  expe- 
rience, or  to  the  oracles  of  the  living  God,  that  siniul  man  is 
unable  to  repent,  to  believe,  or  to  do  his  will:  and  it  follows, 
that  the  language  on  which  we  animadvert,  is  a  manifest  de- 
parture from  the  form  of  sound  words  used  both  in  the  Bible, 
and  in  that  book  which  we  acknowledge  as  the  Confession  of  our 
Faith,  and  as  containing  a  correct  exhibition  of  revealed  truth. 

To  justify  themselves,  preachers  who  use  such  language, 
will  recur  to  a  favourite  distinction,  and  say  they  mean,  not  a 
morale  but  a  natural^  ability.  And  why  do  not  they  keep  in 
view  this  distinction?  Why  use  such  unqualified  language? 
Why  assert  that  man  has  iuU  ability,  ample  power,  when  they 
intend  onlj-  natural  ability,  in  opposition  to  moral  ability,  of 
which  they  affirm  he  is  destitute? 

jVoral  ability,  then,  by  their  own  acknowledgment,  is  ne- 
cessary to  the  actual  performance  of  obedience  to  God's  holy 
will,  as  well  as  natural  ability;  consequently  the  latter,  sepa- 
rate from  the  former,  is  not  sufficient;  and  it  is,  therefore,  im- 

•  Rom.  vii. 


10 

wan-antable  to  affirm,  that  sinners  possess  ability,  full  ability 
to  do  whatever  is  required  from  them  by  the  divine  law.  An 
unregenerate  man  has  a  natural  power  to  eat;  God  commands 
him  to  eat  to  his  glory:  and  can  this  man  perform  the  action 
of  eating  in  a  holy  manner,  while  destitute  of  renewing  grace, 
because  he  has  the  bodily  organs  necessary  for  masticating 
his  food?  By  no  means:  he  can  eat,  but  he  cannot  eat  to 
the  glory  of  God:  he  can  do  the  natural  action,  but  he  cannot 
do  it  in  the  holy  manner  in  which  God  commands  it  to  be 
done. 

A  combination  of  two  powers  js  necessary  to  raise  a  certain 
weight.  Here  is  the  human,  and  there  the  mechanical,  powerj 
I  assert,  there  is  full  power  to  raise  the  weight.  Remove  the 
human  and  leave  the  mechanical  power,  or  take  away  the 
mechanical  and  leave  the  human  power;  I  assert  there  is  not 
power  to  raise  the  weight. 

But  v/hat  is  meant  by  this  natural  ability  in  sinners  to  do 
the  will  of  God?  Does  It  mean  no  more  than  that  they  are 
endowed  with  the  faculties  of  understanding,  will,  and  affec- 
tions, and  are  therefore  accountable  creatures?  This  is  the 
signification  attributed  to  the  phrase  by  Fuller,  Smalley,  and 
others.  Our  objection  to  the  use  of  this  phrase,  when  em- 
ployed to  denote  the  possession  of  these  faculties,  shall  be 
stated  in  a  subsequent  pan  of  this  essay.  At  present  our  de- 
sign is  to  expose  the  impropriety  of  maintaining  that  sinners 
have  full  ability  to  do  all  that  is  required  of  them  by  the  law 
of  God. 

If  the  possession  of  these  faculties  constitute  the  ability  of 
sinners,  then  they  must  be  in  such  an  unimpaired  state  as 
really  to  enable  them  to  lulfil  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
without  the  aid  of  any  other  power,  or  the  mode  of  speaking 
adopted  by  some  divines,  cannot  be  justified;  because  an 
ability  that  is  not  sufficient  to  peribrm  any  work,  certainly  can- 
not be  denominated,  with  any  propriety  of  speech,  full  ability, 
ample  power.  But  the  advocates  of  this  phraseology  allow 
the  understanding  to  be  blind,  the  will  rebellious,  and  the  affec- 
tions perverse;    and  moreover  maintain,  that  till  sinners  b( 


11 

bom  again,  regenerated  in  a  supernatural  manner,  created 
anfcw  by  Almighty  power,  they  never  will  repent,  never  will 
believe,  never  will  obey.  Now,  it  these  laculties  must  undergo 
a  supernatural  change  before  sinners  can  obtain  that  moral 
ability  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  enable  them  to  do 
their  duty,  what  becomes  of  their  full  ability,  their  ample 
poweri'  That  the  unregenerate  possess  the  iaculties  belong- 
ing to  human  nature,  which  make  them  accountable  creatures, 
no  one  denies:  this  is  not  the  question  at  issue;  it  is  one 
widely  different, — Whether  they  possess  full  ability  to  do 
whatever  is  required  of  them  while  all  these  faculties  are  cor- 
rupted, disordered,  and  enfeebled  by  sin?  This  is  the  ques- 
tion. If  they  be  endowed  with  such  ability,  then  they  know 
their  duty  in  all  its  extent,  and  their  understanding  is  not 
blinded;  if  they  be  endowed  with  such  ability,  then  their 
hearts  are  free  from  enmit)',  and  burning:  with  supreme  and 
intense  love  of  God:  because,  without  such  knowledge  of  duty 
and  such  love  to  God,  it  is  impossible  to  keep  his  holy  law: 
and  to  affirm  a  man  to  be  possessed  of  present  ability  to  keep 
the  law  perfectly,  and  at  the  same  time  to  affirm  that  he  is 
ignorant  of  its  requirements,  and  destitute  of  love  to  the  su- 
preme Lawgiver,  is  a  contradiction;  for  the  law  requires  him 
this  moment  to  know  his  duty  fully,  and  to  act  from  perfect 
and  unabating  love  to  God.  But  for  such  knowledge  and 
such  love  in  unregenerate  sinners  they  do  not  contend;  on  the 
contrary,  they  allow  them  to  be  at  once  destitute  both  of  the 
one  and  the  other:  why,  then,  will  they  use  language  so 
grossly  improper  as  that  which  we  censure;  and,  in  opposition 
to  their  own  acknowledged  principles,  assert  that  men,  blind 
in  their  understandings,  and  in  their  hearts  opposed  to  God, 
possess  full  ability,  ample  power  to  fulfil  all  his  good  and  holy 

will! 

Compare  this  ability  with  the  work  it  has  to  perform.  The 
law  requires  them  to  know  the  Lord;  but  they  know  him  not! 
The  law  commands  them  to  love  God  with  all  their  hearts; 
but  enmity  reigns  in  their  hearts!  The  law  requires  them  to 
bow  their  wills   submissively  to  its  supreme   authority;  but 


12 

their  wills  are  rebellious!  The  law  commands  them  to  centre 
all  iheir  affectioiis  on  Jehovah;  but  their  affections  are  cen- 
tred on  the  world!  When  ignorance  shall  become  the  source 
of  knowledge,  and  enmitv  the  parent  ol  love;  when  obedience 
shall  spring  rom  rebellion,  and  order  from  disorder,  as  their 
natural  fru  ts;  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  it  be  true,  or  con- 
sistent, to  affir-in,  that  an  unregenerate  sinner  has  full  ability  to 
keep  all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  our  God. 

To  maintain  that  fallen  man  has  ability  to  do  the  whole  will 
of  God,  is  to  maintain  that  he  has  an  ability  superior  to  that 
oi  Adam  in  h.s  primeval  state  g»f  innocence  and  holiness. 
When  our  first  parent  came  rresh  from  the  creating  hand  of 
God,  light,  and  love,  and  order  reigned  in  all  his  faculties; 
and,  in  the  course  oi  iiis  obedience,  he  had  to  struggle  with  no 
inward  darkness,  or  disorder,  or  corruption.  Free  trom  every 
deiect  and  weakness,  his  powers  were  periectly  equal  to  the 
work  required  .rom  him  by  the  law  oi  his  God. 

With  such  ability  was  the  first  man  blest;  and  less  than  this 
could  not  have  been  pronounced  sufficient.  Have,  we  ask, 
his  posterity  such  ability?  Are  their  laculties  in  this  perfect 
state?  Ail  are  depraved  by  sin:  darkness,  enmity,  and  dis- 
order re  gn  in  the  soul.  And  yet  with  laculties,  thus  corrupted 
and  en  eebled,  it  is  asserted,  that  fallen  man  has  ability  to  do 
the  v/hole  v/ill  of  God;  and  in  fact,  to  do  more  than  was  re- 
quired jrom  our  great  progenitor,  while  rejoicing  in  the  full 
possession  of  all  those  noble  and  holy  endowments  with  which 
he  was  enrched  by  the  munificence  of  his  Creator:  lor  he  is 
commanded  to  convert  himself, — to  make  himself  a  new 
heart, — to  rise  from  the  dead, — and  to  become  a  new  crea- 
ture! How  extravagant  the  assertion!  All  this  is  his  duty, 
because  his  Maker  requires  it  from  him;  but  the  work  far 
transcends  his  ability,  and  can  be  accomplished  only  by  the 
m  ghty  power  of  God.  To  convert  the  soul  irom  sin  to  holi- 
ness,— to  take  away  the  stony  heart,  and  give  a  heart  of  flesh, 
— to  raise  the  sinner  from  the  dead, — and  to  create  him  a  new 
creature  in  Chnst  Jesus,  and  adorn  him  with  the  lost  image  of 
his   Creator, — is  described  by  inspired  writers  as  the  appro- 


13 

prlate  work  of  Jehoval):  aiul  it  seems  surprising  that  scnsil)le 
men,  contemplating  the  nature  ot  the  work,  and  atirilmtine;  the 
glory  of  it  to  our  God,  and  allowing  it  never  was,  and  never 
will  be,  accomplished  by  any  son  or  daughter  oi  Adam,  still 
maintain  the  ability  of  man  to  be  equ^l  to  it. 

Jehovah  proclaims  to  apostate  man  his  entire  duty,  not  to 
inflate  him  with  lolty  notions  of  his  own  power,  but  to  con- 
vince him  that  he  is  fallen  from  his  primitive  rectitude;  to 
abase  his  pride,  by  teaching  him  his  impotence  and  vileness; 
to  awaken  his  fears  by  a  sense  of  his  misery:  and  that  feeling 
his  depravity,  his  wretchedness,  and  his  utter  inability  to  fulfil 
the  will  of  God,  or  to  rescue  himself  from  his  deplorable  cir- 
cumstances, he  may  be  constrained  to  look  for  deliverance  to 
that  merciful  Being  Mhom  he  has  offended,  and  fi'om  whom 
alone  can  come  all-sufficient  aid. 

To  the  preceding  discussion  it  may  be  objected  bv  some, 
that  the  term  natural  has  been  used  in  a  sense  different  from 
what  they  choose  to  give  it.  We  mean  by  it,  thev  may  sav, 
what  it  signifies,  when  we  speak  of  the  natural^  as  distinguished 
from  the  morale  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being.  Let  us  try 
the  question  on  this  ground;  and  inquire  whether  this  signifi- 
cation of  the  term  will  authorize  the  assertion  that  sinners 
have  full  ability  to  do  the  whole  will  of  God. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  objectors,  that  fallen  man  has  not 
vioral  ability  to  obey  the  divine  law:  and  consequently  they 
must  allow  it  to  be  impossible  for  the  unregenerate  to  yield  the 
required  obedience;  or  maintain  the  absurd  position,  that  they 
can  keep  the  law  of  love  without  love  in  the  heart,  serve  the 
Lord  with  a  rebellious  will,  and  delight  in  him  with  affections 
under  the  reigning  influence  of  sin;  or  that  they  can,  in  a 
mojnenty  regenerate  and  create  themselves  anew,  and  render 
themselves  perlect,  as  their  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect. 

The  union  of  two  powers,  natural  and  moral,  is  necessary 
to  qualify  a  man  for  yielding  obedience  to  the  divine  law:  it 
follows,  therefore,  that  if  one  (the  moral  for  instance)  of  the  re- 
quisite powers  be  destroyed,  man  is  no  longer  qualified  to  yield 
•bedience.    His  ability  is  gone.    Natural  ability  to  do  natural 


u 

actions  may  remain;  but  surely  he  has  lost  the  ability  which 
was  the  result  of  the  union  of  the  two  powers. 

To  illustrate  this  idea,  let  us  recur  to  the  distinction  made 
between  the  divine  attributes  of  the  Supreme.  His  natural 
attributes  constitute  his  power  to  do  natural  actions,  or  actions 
corresponding  to  these  perfections:  his  moral  attributes  con- 
stitute his  ability  to  do  moral  actions,  or  to  do  all  in  a  right 
and  holy  manner.  Now,  (if  the  reverence  due  to  his  glorious 
majesty  will  allow  the  supposition,)  let  us  suppose  the  Deity 
deprived  of  his  morale  while  he  retains  his  natural^  attributes, 
what  would  be  the  result?  Manifestly  this:  He  would  still 
possess  the  power  of  doing  natural  actions,  but  he  would  be 
destitute  of  power  to  do  moral  actions.  He  would  be  capable 
of  astonishing  the  universe  by  displays  of  omnipotence,  and  of 
confounding  his  creatures  by  terrible  exhibitions  of  grandeur; 
but  he  would  be  incapable  of  acting  in  that  holy  and  just,  good 
and  merciful,  benevolent  and  lovely  manner,  in  which  our  God 
invariably  acts,  and  by  which  he  attaches  to  himself  the  heart 
of  every  intelligent  creature  that  wears  his  image.  To  affirm 
that  such  a  Being  had  ability  to  do  moral  actions,  would  be  a 
gross  violation  of  correct  language. 

The  case  of  man  is  parallel.  When  originally  created,  he 
was  endowed  by  his  Creator  with  natural  ability  to  do  natural 
actions,  and  with  moral  ability  to  do  moral  or  holy  actions; 
but  by  his  apostacy  he  was  deprived  of  the  latter,  though  not 
of  the  former:  and  to  assert,  that  man,  in  his  lapsed  state, 
possesses  ability  to  act  in  a  Ao/j/,  merely  because  he  retains  the 
power  of  acting  in  a  natural^  manner,  is  indeed  absurd,  and 
setting  aside  the  use  of  moral  power  altogether.  While  his 
heart  remained  pure  and  uncorrupted,  he  had  both  the  power 
of  speech,  and  the  power  of  speaking  in  a  holy  way,  by  using 
his  tongue  to  the  glory  of  its  Maker;  but  when  his  heart  be- 
came polluted  with  sin,  he  lost  the  latter,  though  he  retained 
the  former,  power:  he  could  still  do  the  natural  action,  but  he 
could  not  do  it  in  a  holy  manner;  he  could  use  his  tongue  in 
speaking,  but  he  could  not  use  it,  as  duty  requires,  to  the 
glory  of  God. 


15 

With  this  illustration  the  language  of  our  Confession  *A 
Faith,  perfectly  accords.  "  Man  by  his  fall  hath  wholly  lost 
all  ability  of  xuill  to  any  s/jiri/ua/^^^oo J  accompanying  salvation; 
so  as  a  ?iatural  man,  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which 
is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  720^  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to 
convert  himself  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto."  Chap.  ix. 
Sect.  3.  And  what  is  more  important,  the  statement  harmo- 
nizes with  the  language  of  Holy  Scripture,  as  will  appear  from 
the  texts  cited  in  support  of  this  article  in  our  Confession: 
and  as  several  of  them  have  already  been  used  in  the  course 
of  this  essay,  we  shall  here  quote  only  one:  "  The  carnal  mind 
is  enmity  against  God:  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
neither  indeed  can  be."* 

In  a  recent  publication,  which  maintains  that  sinners  have 
ample  power  to  love  God,  and  full  ability  to  do  his  will,  the 
author  explains  his  meaning  thus:  "  But  the  ability  which  is 
ascribed  to  them  ought  to  be  distinctly  explained.  It  is  a 
natural  abilit)'^  in  distinction  from  a  moral.  By  moral  I  mean 
that  which  has  relation  to  praise  or  blame:"f  and  by  naturalhe 
must  mean  that  which  bears  no  relation  to  praise  or  blame. 
Here,  then,  he  exhibits  the  nature  of  this  full  ability.  It  is  an 
ability  which  bears  no  relation  to  praise  or  blame;  and  yet 
this  is  full  ability  to  do  a  work  which,  in  the  highest  sense, 
bears  relation  to  praise!  What  a  correspondence  between  the 
nature  of  the  work  and  the  nature  of  the  power! 

But  where  shall  we  find  this  ability?  In  what  part  of  human 
nature  is  it  seated?  Is  it  the  understanding,  or  the  will,  or  the 
heart,  or  all  combined?  It  can  be  neither  of  these  faculties, 
nor  can  it  consist  in  the  united  force  of  all;  because  all  these 
faculties  bear  relation  to  praise  and  blame,  and  we  are  account- 
able for  the  exercise  of  them.  We  are  not  blameable  in  having 
an  understanding;  but  we  are  blameable  in  having  a  blinded 
understanding.  We  are  not  blameable  in  having  a  will;  but 
we  are  blameable  in  having  a  will  opposed  to  the  will  of  God. 
We  are  not  blameable  in  having  a  heart;  but  we  arc  blameable 
in  having  a  hard  and  stony  heart.  In  what  then,  does  this 
•  Rom.  Tiii.  7.    t  Griflin's  Lecture;-. 


16 

ability  consist?  In  our  bodily  organs?  Has  the  sinner  ful!  abili- 
ty to  love  and  serv^e  God,  because  he  has  hands  and  feet,  eyes 
and  ears?  Why,  even  these  organs  bear  some  relation  to  praise 
or  blame,  and  may  be  used  either  "  as  instruments  of  righte- 
ousness unto  God,''  or  "  as  instruments  of  unrighteousness 
imto  sin."  Indeed,  we  do  not  know  in  what  this  writer  pla- 
ces his  full  abilit}';  and  from  his  definition  or  explanation,  we 
should  despair  of  discovering  in  what  faculty,  either  of  body 
or  mind,  it  is  seated. 

The  same  writer  concludes  his  argument  thus:  "  There  is 
no  difficulty  in  the  way,  but  what  you  are  to  blame  for^ — none 
therefore  but  of  a  moral  nature, — therefore  no  natural  inabili' 
ty^ — of  course  you  must  have  na^z^ra/ />ozi;er."  Here  is  a  show 
of  argument.  Let  us  examine  it,  and  see  if  the  author's  rea- 
soning will  abide  the  test  furnished  by  this  syllogism.  If  the 
sinner's  inability  be  moral,  that  is,  blameable^  the  inference  is 
just  that  it  cannot  be  natural,  that  is,  unblameable.  So  far  the 
reasoning  is  sound.  But  is  the  conclusion  logically  drawn? 
If  it  is,  then  the  term  natural^  in  the  conclusion,  has  precise- 
ly the  same  signification  which  it  has  in  the  premises:  in  the 
premises  it  means  unblameable,  and,  consequently,  in  the  con- 
clusion it  must  mean  unblameable.  Let  us  then  give  this  ex- 
planation to  the  term  in  the  conclusion,  and  it  will  read  thus: 
"  Of  course  you  must  have  natural,  that  is,  unblameable  pow- 
er!" 

Once  more  we  ask,  Is  it  logical  to  infer  from  the  want  of 
one  power  the  possession  of  another;  or  does  it  follow  be- 
cause the  sinner's  inability  is  blameable,  he  must  have  un- 
blameable power?  Can  you  prove  from  the  fact  that  a  man 
has  no  disposition  to  relieve  the  wants  of  the  poor,  that  he 
must  have  plenty  of  money?  May  he  not  be  alike  destitute 
of  both?  May  he  not  have  a  hard,  covetous,  unfeeling  heart, 
while  he  is  poor  in  his  outward  estate? 

In  every  view  that  has  been  taken  of  this  subject,  the  lan- 
guage on  which  we  animadvert  appears  incorrect;  and  we 
are  constrained  to  conclude,  that  our  brethren  who  use  it,  either 
do  not  express  their  own  meaning,  or  inculcate  an  error. 


17 

But  we  may  be  asked,  Dd  you  deny  the  inalnlity  of  sinners 
to  be  moral?  We  reply,  li  by  that  term  be  meant  what  is  in- 
excusable, sinful,  we  certamly  do  not;  and,  it  is  presumed, 
nothinfj  has  been  advanced  in  this  discussion  to  countenance 
any  idea  of  the  kind.  In  this  point  we  unite  with  those  vhosc 
doctrine  we  condemn;  and  warmly  inculcate  tho  important 
truth,  that  the  sinner  has  no  excuse  <or  transgressing  a  holy 
law,  and  being  opposed  in  heart  to  his  glorious  Creator  and 
rightful  Sovereign.  The  law  still  presses  on  him  its  righteous 
demands  in  all  their  extent,  notwithstanding  his  inability,  and 
refuses  to  debate  an  iota  in  lavour  of  the  corruptions  oi  his 
nature. 

Having  thus  exposed  the  unqualified  language  used  by 
some  preachers,  we  proceed  to  state  our  objections  to  the 
more  guarded,  but  exceptionable,  language  adopted  by 
others. 

We  have  no  design  to  contest  the  propr  ety  of  making  a 
distinction  between  natural  and  moral  ability.  There  is  suffi- 
cient foundation  for  it.  Man,  even  in  his  I  alien  state,  certain- 
ly possesses  natural  ability  to  do  many  actions;  and  the  asser- 
tion of  his  inability  to  do  holy^  by  no  means  requires  the  de- 
nial of  power  to  perform  natural^  actions.  He  has  power  to  eat 
and  drink,  to  think  and  speak;  to  read  and  hear  the  word  of 
God,  to  meditate  and  pray:  in  a  word,  he  has  the  iacultics  of 
a  living  and  rational  creature.  While,  therefore,  we  admit  it 
to  be  correct  to  say,  he  possesses  natural  ability  to  perform 
actions  which  he  really  can  do,  we  apprehend  it  to  be  incor- 
rect to  say  he  has  natural  ability  to  obey  the  whole  will  of 
God:  that  is,  to  perform  actions  which  he  really  cannot  do. 

The  phrase  is  calculattd  to  mislead.  It  is  very  indefmite 
in  its  meaning,  and  is  actually  used  by  different  writers  to  sig- 
nify very  different  ideas.  Hence  it  is  often  hard  to  know  what 
it  is  intended  to  denote  by  those  who  use  it.  Common  hear- 
ers may  very  naturally  suppose  that  it  means  full  ability,  and 
that  the  sinner  needs  no  other  power  to  enable  him  to  keep 
all  the  commandments,  but  only  an  excitement  to  put  forth 
the  ability  which  he  already  possesses. 

e 


18 

As  the  phrase  is  calculated  to  mislead,  so  it  is  unvvarrant- 
ABLE.  An  infant  child  has  feet,  and  the  organs  of  speech;  but 
till  he  has  acquired  the  art  of  walking  and  speaking,  he  cer- 
tainly has  not  ability  either  to  walk  or  to  speak.  A  man  has 
a  mind  capable  of  becoming  acquainted  with  philosophical 
subjects;  but  till  he  has  studied  philosophy,  he  certainly  has 
not  ability  to  discourse  on  such  subjects.  It  would  be  deemed 
absurd  to  assert  that  a  child  had  natural  ability  to  speak  and 
walk,  when  he  had  not  learned  the  art  of  speaking  and  walk- 
ing; or  to  assert  that  a  man,  entirely  ignorant  of  philosophi- 
cal subjects,  possessed  natural  ability  to  discourse  in  a  philo- 
sophical manner.  And  it  is  not  more  absurd  to  assert,  that 
sinful  man  has  natural  ability  to  do  holy  actions,  when  he  cer- 
tainly cannot  do  these  actions,  till  divine  grace  have  given 
him  the  requisite  ability?  For  a  child  to  learn  to  walk  and  to 
speak,  requires  only  time  and  practice;  and  for  a  man  of  un- 
derstanding to  learn  to  discourse  on  philosophical  subjects, 
demands  only  diligent  study:  but  for  fallen  man  to  obtain  abili- 
ty to  love  and  serve  his  Maker,  requires  an  entire  change  of 
his  nature;  a  change  produced,  not  by  the  exertion  of  any  power 
in  himself,  but  by  the  mighty  power  of  God.  To  affirm  that 
the  child  has  feet,  and  may  learn  to  walk,  and  that  man  has  an 
und-^rstanding,  and  may  become  a  philosopher,  would  be  true; 
and  to  affirm  that  fallen  man  possesses  rational  laculties,  and 
may  be  made  the  subject  of  renewing  grace,  and  be  endowed 
with  power  from  on  high  to  obey  his  Creator's  will,  would  like- 
wise be  true:  but  to  affirm  concerning  either  that  he  has  natu- 
ral ability  to  do  what  in  fact  he  has  not  ability  to  do,  is,  in 
our  apprehension,  an  unwarrantable  use  of  language. 

It  is  worthy  of  observ'^ation  how  the  use  of  this  phrase  be- 
trays its  advocates  into  contradictory  statements.  In  a  recent 
publication  we  find  the  following  assertions:  "  The  Gospel  de- 
clares that  we  are,  by  nature^  children  of  disobedience,  having 
NO  POWER  to  please  God;" — the  sinner  "  is  without  spiritual 
strength;'''* — ^he  "  never  xvill  come,  and  never  can  come  to 
Christ,  without  the  special  grace  of  God;"— he  is  "  utterly 
polluted  and  helpless:'*''  and  yet  the  author  lays  it  down  as  a 


19 

"great  and  important  principle  in  the  Divine  government 
that  more  is  never  required  than  there  is  natural  power  ^  to 
perlorm."* 

The  author  oi  another  late  publication,  in  order  to  prove 
that  regeneration  is  :x  supernaturol  work  of  divine  grace,  talc ea 
a  survey  of  all  the  laculties  of  human  nature,  and,  from  their 
corrupt  and  disordered  state,  evinces  that  there  can  be  found 
in  them  no  adequate  cause  from  which  this  gieat  and  entire 
cliange  can  proceed:  antl  after  having  established  this  impor- 
tant truth  by  arguments  tlius  derived  from  the  impaired  and 
depraved  state  of  his  natural  faculties,  he  affirms  again  and 
again,  that  the  unregenerate  man  has  full  power ^  ample  abUitij^ 
to  do  all  required  from  him  by  the  will  of  God!f  And  conse- 
quendy,  as  he  is  commanded  to  make  himself  a  new  heart,  he 
is  able  to  regenerate  himself. 

Nor  has  Fuller  escaped  the  rock  against  which  others  have 
struck  their  adventurous  barks.  This  will  appear  from  com- 
paring a  few  passages  in  his  "  Gospel  worthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion:' "The  law  of  God  itself,"  (he  asserts  in  p.  117)  "  re- 
quires no  creature  to  love  him,  or  obey  him,  beyond  his  strength, 
or  with  more  than  all  the  powers  which  he  possesses:":}:  but  in 
page  122,  he  states  an  objection  to  his  doctrine  thus:  "  It  is 
sometimes  suggested,  that  to  ascribe  natural  ability  to  sinners 
to  perform  things  spiritually  good,  is  to  nourish  their  self-suf- 
ficiency; and  to  represent  their  inability  as  only  moral,  is  to 
suppose  that  it  is  not  insuperable^  but  may  be  overcome  by  ef- 
forts of  their  own."  Are  not  these  passages  contradictory? 
The  first  asserts  that  sinners  have  strengdi  sufficient  to  love 
and  obey  God;  but  the  second  asserts  that  their  inability  to  do 
things  spiritually  good,  or  to  love  and  obey  God,  is  insupera- 
ble^ and  not  to  be  overcome  by  efforts  of  their  own.  Stkength 
sufficient,  and  insuperable  inability!  11  If  a  man  labour  un- 
der an  insuperable  inability  to  do  any  thing,  he  certainly  has 
not  strength  sufficient  to  do  that  thing,  although  he  may  have 
strength  to  do  many  other  things.  Were  the  natural  ability 
of  sinners  sufficient  to  overcome  their  moral  inability,  then  it 

•Richard's  sermon  on  tlip  sinner's  inability,  f  Griffin's  lectures.  +Conin'scd.  N.V. 


20 

might  be  asserted  that  they  had  sufficient  strength  to  do  things 
spirituallv  good,  or  to  love  and  obey  God:  but  that  they  have 
not  such  strength  is  asserted  by  Fuller  still  more  strongly,  in 
page  152,  where,  referring  to  our  Lord's  address  to  the  young 
ruler,  who  inquired  what  he  must  do  to  inherit  eternal  life,  he 
observes,  ''  that  to  which  he  was  directed  was  the  producing 
of  a  righteousness  adequate  to  the  demands  of  the  law,  which 
was  NATURALLY  impossible-"  It  was  naturally  impossible  for< 
this  young  man  to  fulfil  the  demands  of  the  law,  and  yet  he 
was  requ  red  to  do  nothing  beyond  his  strength!  It  was  natur- 
ally impossible  for  him  to  fulfil  the  demands  ol  the  law,  and 
yet  he  had  natural  ability  to  obey  the  law,  or  fulfil  all  its  de- 
mands!! 

We  have  another,  and  an  important  objection  to  this  phrase, 
and  that  is,  It  does  not  answei  the  purpose  for  which  it  has 
been  coined. 

It  is  inculcated  by  all  who  embrace  the  doctrines  of  grace, 
as  an  essential  truth,  that  man,  in  his  i alien  state,  is  unable  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  God.  To  this  humiliating  truth 
it  is  objected,  that  it  goes  to  set  aside  the  obligation  to  obe- 
dience; and  it  is  confidently  asked,  as  if  the  objection  could 
not  be  answered,  How  can  it  be  just  in  the  Creator  to  demand 
from  h'.s  creatures  an  obedience  which  they  are  unaljie  to 
yield,  and  then  to  punish  them  for  inevitable  disobedience? 
We  meet  the  difficulty  presented  in  this  objection  by  recurrmg 
to  the  fall  of  Adam,  our  federal  head  and  representative. 
Had  man,  we  admit,  been  originally  created  in  his  present 
state,  the  law  by  which  he  is  governed,  would  indeed  have 
been  disproportionate  to  his  powers;  but  as  he  was  at  Jirst 
made  upright,  free  from  every  siniul  bias,  and  endowed  with 
ample  powers  to  yield  the  required  obedience;  and  as  by  his 
own  wilful  transgression  he  corrupted  his  nature,  and  thus, 
by  impairing  his  own  powers,  rendered  himself  unable  to  keep 
the  commandments  or  God;  we  contend  it  is  just  in  our  Su- 
preme Legislator  to  insist  on  the  obedience  originally  de- 
manded irom  him;  because  an  inability  contracted  by  wilful 
apostacy,  can  neither  diminish  the  right  of  the  Creator  to 
command,  nor  lessen  the  obligation  ot  the  creature  to  obevt 


21 

With  this  reply  the  advocates  of  natural  ability  are  not  satis- 
fied.    They  imagine  a  more  complete  and  satisfactory  answer 
is   given   by   the   distinction   they  make  between  natural  and" 
moral  inability.     So  think  Fuller  and  Smailey. 

Now,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  this  distinction  contributes  not 
a  particle  of  weight  to  the  answer  already  given,  nor  sheds  a 
single  new  ray  of  light,  it  will  appear  to  be  oi'  no  value  in  refer- 
ence to  the  objection.  What,  we  ask,  is  meant  by  natural 
ability?  They  answer,  the  rational  facidties  of  man,  his  under- 
standing, will,  and  affections.  That  man  possesses  these  facul- 
ties is  not  denied;  and  it  is  admitted  also,  that  if  he  were 
deprived  of  them  he  would  cease  to  be  a  moral  agent — an 
accountable  creature.  No  proof,  then,  is  required  to  show 
that  he  is  endowed  with  these  attributes;  and  if  proof  were 
demanded,  it  would  not  be  found  in  the  bare  assertion  of  his 
natural  ability.  What  is  the  question,  then,  at  issue?  Not 
whether  man  possesses  natural  faculties,  but  how  a  creature, 
possessing  these  faculties  in  a  state  so  corrupted  and  disordered 
by  sin  as  to  be  rendered  unable  to  obey  the  divine  law,  can 
be  justly  required  to  yield  an  obedience  beyond  his  ability? 
Now,  to  affirm  that  man  has  natural  ability  to  yield  obedience, 
is  no  answer  to  the  quesiion;  lor  It  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  to  assert  what  is  admitted  in  the  question, — that  he  has 
understanding,  will,  and  affections.  To  give  weight  to  this 
phrase,  and  make  it  worth  contending  ior,  it  ought  to  signify 
more  than  Fuller  and  Smailey  ascribe  to  it;  it  should  convey 
what,  it  is  to  be  apprehended,  it  does  convey  to  many  minds, 
that  fallen  man  has  all  the  abilitv  he  needs,  and  labours  under 
no  inability  whatever  to  yield  obedience.  This  is  !elt  by  some 
who  rely  on  this  distinction:  and  hence,  it  seems,  they  lay 
aside  the  use  of  the  qualifying  term  natural^  and  assert  the  fiill 
ability^  the  ample  potver  of  man:  yet  shrinking  back  from  the 
true  import  of  their  phraseology,  they  speak  of  the  moral  ina- 
bility  of  man;  because  facts  and  Scripture  compel  them  to 
admit  the  truth.  Such  a  reply,  however,  to  the  objection, 
would  not  remove  the  difficulty;  it  would  be  an  admission  that 
it  was  insurmountable,  and  an  acknowledgement  that  inability 


22 

of  any  kind  would  release  man  from  the  duty  of  obedience  to 
the  law  of  God. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  reply  to  the  objection,  by  the  advo- 
cates of  natural  ability,  when  carefully  examined,  amounts  to 
nothing;  and  as  the  phrase  does  not  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  invented,  it  should,  for  this,  and  other  reasons,  be 
discarded.  The  only  reply  to  the  objection  is  what  we  stated; 
it  is  sufficient  and  satisfactory:  and  if  the  sinner,  feeling  his 
inability,  will  still  dispute  the  equity  of  the  law  in  exacting  an 
obedience  beyond  his  strength,  he  must  settle  the  matter  with 
his  Maker,  who  will  doubtless  bring  forth  his  judgment  unto 
victory. 

We  urge  but  one  more  objection  to  this  phrase.  There  is 
just  as  much  reason  for  ascribing  to  man  moral  ability  to  per- 
form the  required  obedience,  as  there  is  to  ascribe  to  him  na- 
tural ability.  Were  we  to  denominate  the  understanding,  will, 
and  aifections,  moral  faculties,  some  might  feel  disposed  to 
dispute  the  matter  with  us;  but  as  they  must  acknowledge  that 
man  has  a  moral  faculty  or  faculties,  it  is  unnecessary  for  us  to 
defend  our  opinion;  enough  is  granted  to  make  out  the  truth 
of  our  assertion.  Man  possesses  both  natural  and  moral  facul- 
ties; if,  therefore,  it  be  correct  to  affirm  that  he  has  natural 
ability,  because  he  possesses  the  former^  it  must  be  correct  to 
affirm  that  he  has  moral  ability,  because  he  possesses  the  latter 
faculties:  the  ground  of  the  one  assertion  is  just  as  good  as 
that  of  the  other. 

The  sum  of  the  preceding  discussion  may  be  stated  in  the 
following  propositions: 

1.  That  fallen  man  is  unable  to  obey  the  will  of  God. 

2.  That  the  faculties  of  understanding,  will,  and  affections, 
belonging  to  human  nature,  do  not  supply  him  with  ability  to 
yield  the  obedience  required;  because  these  faculties  are  so 
corrupted  and  disordered  by  sin,  that,  without  the  renovating 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  can  neither  love,  nor  serve,  nor 
obey  the  Lord,  as  duty  commands. 

3.  That  his  inability  is  mexcusable,  or,  if  you  please,  moral, 
because  it  arises  from  the  depravity  of  his  nature;  and  as  this 


23 

inability  is  inseparable  irom  a  depraved  nature,  and  is 
born  with  the  sinner,  it  may  in  truth  be  termed  natural  as  well 
as  moral. 

4.  That  although  man  has  what  may  be  called  7iatural^  in 
distinction  from  moral  ability,  yet  the  possession  of  natural 
ability,  while  it  enables  him  to  do  many  corresponding  actions, 
does  not  enable  him  to  perform  holy  actions. 

From  this  view  of  the  condition  of  man  by  nature,  the 
course  to  be  pursued  by  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  plain.  He 
is  to  declare  the  truth,  and  the  whole  truth.  While  he  insists 
on  the  requirements  of  the  law,  maintaining  that  it  demands 
perfect  and  sinless  obedience;  let  him  not  be  afraid,  openly 
and  distinctly  to  announce  the  mortifying  fact,  that  '  no  mere 
man,  since  the  fall,  is  able,  in  this  life,  perfectly  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God;  but  doth  daily  break  them  in  thought, 
word,  and  deed.'  By  inculcating  the  former  truth,  his  hear- 
ers will  be  convinced  that  their  impotence,  from  whatever 
source  it  may  arise,  is  criminal,  and  furnishes  them  with  no 
excuse;  because  it  does  not  release  them  from  the  obligations 
of  duty,  nor  procure  in  their  favour  any  abatement  in  the  de- 
mands of  God's  holy  law:  and  by  inculcatmg  the  latter  truth, 
they  will  be  guarded  against  a  mistaken  reliance  on  their  own 
strength,  and  admonished  both  of  the  necessity  of  depending 
on  Him  whose  strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness,  and  of 
the  duty  of  imploring,  by  earnest  and  importunate  prayers, 
that  grace  which  is  free  and  all-sufficient  for  perishing  and 
helplesss  sinners. 

On  this  plan  acted  the  apostles;  and  it  should  be  adopted 
by  every  Christian  minister.  In  the  writings  of  these  inspired 
teachers  we  find  the  following  propositions: 

That  man  is  an  accountable  creature. 

That,  by  nature,  he  is  unable  to  please  God,  or  keep  his 
commandments.     And, 

That  this  inability,  arising  from  the  corruption  of  his  nature, 
is  inexcusable. 

But  they  never  attempt  to  reconcile  the  seeming  inconsist- 
ency between  the  two  last  propositions,  by  teaching,  or  inti- 


24 

mating  that  man,  in  his  present  fallen  state,  has  ability  to  dt 
all  that  is  required  of  him  by  the  law.  Both  truths  they  in- 
culcate, and  leave  the  difficulty  to  be  settled  between  God  and 
the  sinner's  conscience. 

Not  satisfied  with  this  scriptural  statement,  some  divines, 
in  their  endeavours  to  remove  a  seemin^^  inconsistency,  have 
produced  a  real  contradiction;  maintaining  that  man  has  abili- 
tij  for  obedience,  while  they  assert  his  inability. 


FINIS. 


Cwack  Sf  Prankish,  Printers, 
164,  Mrth  Third  St. 


k 


ri 


m 

H^^I^HIS  '- 

SL^^P^Rfl 

m 

^■k^^ 

-^^w^^ 


